For those of us who have found load data for the various Downrange wads severely lacking, I think I just may have found the cure. My son brought me a new edition of the Alliant powder Reloader's Guide.

Whilst thumbing through it I noticed quite a few loads, especially in 12 ga, (imagine that) references to the DR wads. They are shown as being usable with other wads, as example. One load shows certain components being used with Fig-8 & DRRF8, Another WAA & DRA 12 & DRXL 1 1/8. There are others with reference to Jammers, DRRF 8, DRRF3, DRXXL Orange, Versalite. The list seems pretty comprehensive. There are some listing for Versalites in 20 ga and also for the PC in 28 ga.

It looks as if Alliant has stepped up and provided data for you guys who need it in print.

BP

_________________You lie to the Government, it's a Felony, they lie to you, it's Politics!

In reference to some of the Downrange wads listed above, Alliant didn't test them, and Downrange didn't test them... (and shame on both of them). If either joint actually tested the Drf3, they'd know that it's not even in the same ball park performance wise as the OEM wad (or even their competitors "true" clone for that matter) that it's being "slashed", or "or'd" with.

Alliant made an "assumption" that Downrange semi/non-clones would perform nearly the same (velocities/pressure wise) as the OEM wads that they "wanna-be", and in my eyes, they are just as responsible, (if not more). The only thing worse than no data, is incorrect/deceptive data.

Alliant didn't provide us with any unique data on the downrange wads at all, - all they did was take someone's "gross miss-association" and put it to ink. That's pathetic in my view, and I lose respect for these actions.

The only "unique" data they have listed from non-OEM wad manufacturers is Claybuster with their CB-4100, and CB-6100 etc. (which by the way, you don't see "or'd" with any other wads, OEM or otherwise), and the Duster wads (also not "or'd" with another wad).

Appears to me that Alliant was bought-off by Downrange to put these associations in ink to help boost Downrange sales or something. It's funny how you'll see loads listed as: "12S3 or drf3" (which really aren't the same wad), but yet you don't see loads listed as: "12S3 or CB-2118" (which really are the same wad).

Unless powder company's are re-publishing actual after-market wad manufacturers testing data (like Claybuster and Duster wads took the time to do), then I think they have no business to be grouping said manufacturers non-clone product with OEM (or other) wads without doing their own testing on said non-clone products.

So when an unsuspecting reloader picks a load in an Alliant manual that lists a 'drf3' (for example), and it doesn't work, - who should they call for help, - Alliant or Downrange ?

There are others with reference to Jammers, DRRF 8, DRRF3, DRXXL Orange, Versalite. The list seems pretty comprehensive. There are some listing for Versalites in 20 ga and also for the PC in 28 ga.

It looks as if Alliant has stepped up and provided data for you guys who need it in print.

BP

Alliant made an "assumption" that Downrange semi/non-clones would perform nearly the same (velocities/pressure wise) as the OEM wads that they "wanna-be", and in my eyes, they are just as responsible, (if not more). The only thing worse than no data, is incorrect/deceptive data.

O.K. this i cannot agree with. Alliant is after all the manufacturer of the powder and they are not going to invite lawsuits to appease a wad manufacturer.

There are others with reference to Jammers, DRRF 8, DRRF3, DRXXL Orange, Versalite. The list seems pretty comprehensive. There are some listing for Versalites in 20 ga and also for the PC in 28 ga.

It looks as if Alliant has stepped up and provided data for you guys who need it in print.

BP

Alliant made an "assumption" that Downrange semi/non-clones would perform nearly the same (velocities/pressure wise) as the OEM wads that they "wanna-be", and in my eyes, they are just as responsible, (if not more). The only thing worse than no data, is incorrect/deceptive data.

O.K. this i cannot agree with. Alliant is after all the manufacturer of the powder and they are not going to invite lawsuits to appease a wad manufacturer.

Then tell us why they did this then. Are you somehow trying to tell us that Alliant actually did test a load with a Drf3 who's powder cup is smaller and different than that of an OEM 12S3 and it's true clone the CB-2118 and found it to be identical to an OEM 12S3 ? How is that believable ?

Alliant went and "grouped" a WAA12, DRA12, and a DR XL1 1/8 together for Federal Gold Medal's for most of their powders, just as they grouped the 12S3, DRF3, and DR XXL ORANGE together, and then "grouped" the WAA12SL, DR XL-1, and Jammer XL-1 together for AA's, but yet left the CB-1100, and CB-1118 as separate listings, even though (as I understand) the CB-1100, & CB-1118 are exact clones to the OEM WAA12SL & WAA12 wads.

Attempting to mix a Downrange wad substitution guide in with the individual load data listings is stupid in my opinion.

To me, their decision to group manufacturer untested replacement wads in with data for OEM wads makes their published data suspect.

But the most suspect thing of all, is the decision that Downrange made in not testing and publishing test data for any of their wads like each and every other replacement wad maker has, be it Claybuster, Duster wads, Helarco, Gualandi, etc. What other kind of trial and error chicanery are they hiding from us I wonder ?

In all actuality, reloaders would be better served by someone just raking thru all of the posts here in SGW containing real-world chrono testing results for Downrange wads with Alliant powders, put them all together in one document, clean it up, and post it in the sticky section of the forum and it would have much more value (and accuracy). Add a column on the right for posts found where people have had their loads professionally pressure tested and posted that information as well. If Downrange won't test and publish data on their products, then their customers will.

One assertive approach that I'll throw out here, might be for some of us to approach our own Neil Winston on some sort of a "group-buy" to see if he'd be willing to test some basic loads for the "high end" pressure for common component selections. So for example, we can brew up some of the the highest loads listed for common Downrange wad X, common Alliant powder Y, in hull Z with primer Z' (Z prime = Z-prim-er). It's possible that we can get a better pricing model than we might get from Carl Weiss, or the other big-name ballistic testing labs. If we can determine that sets of loads with X->Z' never approach SAAMI max, then to hell with worrying about pressure, and we can just chrono-adjust our loads down to desired velocities and go about our merry ways reloading and shooting.

[/quote]Then tell us why they did this then. Are you somehow trying to tell us that Alliant actually did test a load with a Drf3 who's powder cup is smaller and different than that of an OEM 12S3 and it's true clone the CB-2118 and found it to be identical to an OEM 12S3 ? How is that believable ? [/quote]

Yes that is what i am trying to say, but not necessarily for performance. I am willing to bet the safety of the load has been tested and verified.

Yeah, well, silly me for misreading the very first sentence on the Alliant Reloading page every time I'm forced to "read and accept" these terms when I visit the reloading center which reads:

The information displayed on this site, including ballistic data, was derived from tightly controlled laboratory conditions.

Guess maybe I was taking that too literally I suppose ...

Course, the second sentence does go on to say:

This information and data may vary considerably depending on many factors, including the components used,

Which, if you think about it, negates the first sentence as soon as you start "grouping" different components in on a single ballistic data listing. i.e. how would you ever know which component the "tightly controlled laboratory conditions" actually applies to ?

Shoot2reload wrote:

Stop looking for conspiracies and fraud everywhere you look.

I suppose.... But what ever happened to that term: "Trust, but verify" ?

But to your assertion (of data "compatibility"), I'll still always have two burning question in my mind:

1) "who, what, how, and why" did the assertion that the Drf3 (for example) is compatible with an OEM 12S3 (any more than a XXL Orange is "compatible" with an OEM 12S3) ever come about?

2) Why is Downrange the only after-market wad manufacturing not publishing testing data on their products ?

I happen to think these are two very valid questions for reloaders to ask, even if it somehow puts me in bad light for asking them in the forum by certain members.

If you went with method "B" above, then why wouldn't you also post that data and make it publicly available (instead of riding on the coat tails of someone [i]else's data) ?

Lymans 5th published data doesn't appear to do this "wad grouping", and lists out each wad on individual lines.

I still maintain that it would be better if Alliant did not group differing wads together in a particular published recipe and just have a side note somewhere that says: wad X can be safely substituted for wad Y.

Steve, Steve, Steve! You been sitting on prickly pears again? Get up, pull the stickers out of your arse!

You seem to be speaking from a position of authority about what Alliant and Downrange either have or have not done. I think that is a bit presumptuous on your part, don't you think? You been a fly on the wall over there? Kind of smacks of Dogchaser on a couple other threads.

I find it interesting that you would suggest nobody load any load that is not a published load in a data booklet such as the one published by Alliant and when they do, you're all over them like stink on poo! Now you come back and say that Alliant doesn't have a clue what they are doing here, just pandering Downrange? One or the other blowing smoke up the other's trouser leg?

Maybe the wads are not identical, so what? Maybe the pressures and velocities are not exactly the same, what two loads are? They are "close enough" in the opinion of the folks over at Alliant, and that's close enough for me. BTW from all the definitions you've expounded on over the years your statement of the Federal wad and the Claybuster being the same thing cannot be true. It doesn't make any difference how close they look, or measure, they aren't the "same thing", unless of course Federal makes the Claybuster wads or Claybuster makes the Federal wads using the same machinery and resins. Are you a fly on the wall over there too?

Maybe in your thorough testing they seem to perform the same and look the same to you so that makes them exactly the same? So be it!

I thought it made sense for Alliant to take a lot of the guesswork out of the limited amount of Downrange data available. Just because Downrange doesn't publish load data doesn't mean they have not tested any of their products. If they haven't, why would they go to the expense of buying testing equipment? Tell me, the Shadow wants to know!

What I do know is they do test their products vs the competitors, either that or Kevin is blowing smoke up my trouser leg.

BP

_________________You lie to the Government, it's a Felony, they lie to you, it's Politics!

If you have a problem with something I have written, bring it up with me directly.

I am not a fly on the wall anywhere and I don't have to go sucking up to the owner of a company to find answers to my questions. Like you are such good friends with the guy at DownRange, that he is going to tell anything other than things are on the up & up. He has probably figured out that you are going to run over to your key board as soon as you are off the phone, beating your chest proving what an "in the know" guy you are.

_________________Mark

K.I.S.S. - Keep it simple, stupid - Nowhere does this statement apply any better than to shotshell reloading.

I do believe this to be the case, yes. Otherwise he'd have this testing data up on his website just like all of the other after-market wad manufactures have. Unless of course, that said testing data puts certain products in dim light, in which case they'd have a reason for not publishing it.

So remind the readers again here how it is that we're to expect the Drf3 pictured on the top shown inside of a FGM to "share" the same ballistic data for velocity and pressure as an OEM 12S3 pictured in the same FGM on the bottom:

Your own view on this last week was:

On: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:27 am, Burnt Powder wrote:

OK then, the Jury's in!

No more loading of the Federal or Eurotrash hulls with DR Federal wannabe 1 oz wads.

My "calibrated test gun" (my dear sweet Benelli Cordoba) also confirms my non-compatibility assertions when using Aliants powder and Alliants published data, and the above is just one such example. (would you like to see more?)

Don't shoot the messenger.

And in regard to footnote #3 below, just "what" combination does the data actually apply to ?

Way too many nits to pick here. He said, you said, they said, it ain't so regardless of what they said, so and so doesn't know what he's talking about, this company is full of it or derelict because of one thing or the lack of another.

Absolutely nothing constructive is happening on a few threads here, and you both know which ones they are, I don't need to quote nor post pictures of any of them.

Use whatever wad and primer turns your crank, believe what you want to regarding very small sets of statistical research making it support whatever you want it to support.

I'll just consider the source and I expect you'll afford me the same courtesy.

BP

_________________You lie to the Government, it's a Felony, they lie to you, it's Politics!

I'll just consider the source and I expect you'll afford me the same courtesy.

Fair enough. I was just illustrating the situation based on my view of the facts and data, free of "hear-say" (which some people apparently still hold to the same regard as actual facts/data).

Trust me, there have been a lot of situations in my life where I "want" to believe 'hear-say' because it fits some personal pleasure zone(s), or I happen to like, or be friends with the hear-sayer, even if I may be aware of external facts and data that don't support the audible word. Shotgunning, and reloading is not something I would ever trust to 'hear-say', especially when it comes from those in the industry who's in a profit situation.

You're a smart guy, and a great asset here, but I will admit, I was a little surprised that you would made this post, and then take that position without questioning it considering that we've recently been through similar discussion threads on the products and manufacturer mentioned above. I'm still not sure why it appears that some folks tend to give Downrange a 'free pass' on not testing their products, and publicly publishing the data. Oh well.

No harm no fowl, but do carefully consider what I've posted.

Thanks!

Last edited by Republican on Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Suggest that you just move along if you don't like what I say and can't contribute to the discussion at hand WITHOUT the personal jabs and insults.

I am not making personal jabs and insults to you, so why must you do that to me ???

Maybe someone with better personal communication skills (read: "free" of personal jabs and insults) can explain to the readers (including myself) how/why it is that two different wads can share the same "data compatibility" but yet one wad works in the published load, and the other results in off-sounders, and FTE's ? How are the two "compatible" ? Moreover, how is the "data" compatible if the end result of the two loads results in vastly different data (velocity, pressure). And I'm not talking about the "safety" stuff either...

Last edited by Republican on Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mokey, don't consider it a personal jab, I want you to consider it the voice of reason.

You're so blinded by your quest to uncover the big Reloading Forum Good Ol' Boy Network conspiracy that makes Alliant publish fudged data on behalf of Downrange that you can't understand what's really at play here: wads of different designs can and do share data.

It's really that simple. The more you babble on-and-on to the contrary just shows you aren't capable of conceptualizing this.

Mokey, don't consider it a personal jab, I want you to consider it the voice of reason.

You're so blinded by your quest to uncover the big Reloading Forum Good Ol' Boy Network conspiracy that makes Alliant publish fudged data on behalf of Downrange that you can't understand what's really at play here: wads of different designs can and do share data.

It's really that simple.

Stop with the condescending comments, and get on with answering the questions that have been clearly presented to YOU and all of the readers here. If wad A produces X velocity, and Y pressure, and wad "B" produces a velocity which is 100's of fps less, and pressures many 100's of psi less, please explain how the published figures are "compatible". Inquiring minds want to know ...

If a reloader is in quest of actual test data for wad A, and actual data for wad B, where should he or she go to get this data ? And which component is the Aliant data actually for, wad A, or wad B ? It's already been established that they are different.

If it takes 2-3 more grains of the powder product to get wad "B" to perform with roughly the samelisted velocity (or pressure even) of wad "A" because of an ill-designed bottom fitment of wad "B" for example, then how is the published data "compatible" ? Simple, - it' not (my original assertion).

They (Alliant) could have easily just said "12S3 *or* Fig-8" and have the data be more "compatible" than how it is currently presented.

And can we assume that you'd equally defend another powder company that wasn't in your home state of VA if they were doing this same thing ?

Shoot2reload wrote:

The more you babble on-and-on to the contrary just shows you aren't capable of conceptualizing this.

And the more you attempt to obfuscate the issue and data being presented to you, the more you reinforce the 'Good ol boy' network theory that you yourself appear to be hiding behind.

Just when is your new loading manual going to be released from the publisher? I for one am awaiting with baded breath for that announcement!

I was going to add a bit more to this post but after reconsidering you post thought better of it. Then I went back and reread your post suggesting we carefully consider your posts.

I did!

I guess I'll just have to wander over to Hastings one of these days and watch them, and heck, maybe even bring a few of my loads using some undocumented wad load data along to see what happens, do a bit of load testing at Downrange. I imagine that data will be suspect since the actual testing will be bogus since it has to be done with phantom test equipment?

I'll let you know how it turns out.

Maybe you've got some load or other you'd like to send me to run through that nonexistent pressure gun?

I think I'll just go watch some paint dry, I'm not sure I can take any more excitement today.

BP

_________________You lie to the Government, it's a Felony, they lie to you, it's Politics!